BJCooperIT
Programmer
The wave of the future?
[sup]Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance.[/sup][sup] ~George Bernard Shaw[/sup]
Consultant/Custom Forms & PL/SQL - Oracle 8.1.7 - Windows 2000
Tek-Tips is the largest IT community on the Internet today!
Members share and learn making Tek-Tips Forums the best source of peer-reviewed technical information on the Internet!
-
Congratulations TouchToneTommy on being selected by the Tek-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!
Workers in tech office to be axed
- Thread starter BJCooperIT
- Start date
- Status
The wave of the future?
[sup]Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance.[/sup][sup] ~George Bernard Shaw[/sup]
Consultant/Custom Forms & PL/SQL - Oracle 8.1.7 - Windows 2000
"Several state employees who have been interviewed by ISOCORP told the Tallahassee Democrat they received no assurances about salary, benefits or job security."
Welcome to our world... and check your union card at the door.
<evil voice>Muhahahaha</evil voice>
Welcome to our world... and check your union card at the door.
<evil voice>Muhahahaha</evil voice>
I agree, I used to be a gov't worker years ago, but as I saw the waste, duplication, and complete idiocy of managers in government services, I decided to leave for the private sector.
The concept of a government job used to be you took lower wages for job security, but these days, most government IT positions pay more than the private sector (long term factored in here), and do they produce? On the whole, government IT staffs are 2 to 4x larger than most private IT staffs, and for all intents and purposes, don't accomplish any more work.
The concept of a government job used to be you took lower wages for job security, but these days, most government IT positions pay more than the private sector (long term factored in here), and do they produce? On the whole, government IT staffs are 2 to 4x larger than most private IT staffs, and for all intents and purposes, don't accomplish any more work.
chicagoAnalyst
MIS
The implication that a private sector job with the same salary and a '401k plan' is comparable to the lost govt job is deceptive.
One reason people went for govt jobs (despite the rep for lower pay) was that they got a pension. A pension that was a guaranteed amount of money per year at retirement, not tied to market performance.
Only 20% of private employers still offer pensions, and the opportunity to save your money in a 401k is worth far far less in real terms. Heck, most of us can put $ aside in an IRA to get the tax benefits of a 401k. Even those companies that give their employees a 401k match are spending much less cash that they would for a pension.
ChicagoAnalyst
One reason people went for govt jobs (despite the rep for lower pay) was that they got a pension. A pension that was a guaranteed amount of money per year at retirement, not tied to market performance.
Only 20% of private employers still offer pensions, and the opportunity to save your money in a 401k is worth far far less in real terms. Heck, most of us can put $ aside in an IRA to get the tax benefits of a 401k. Even those companies that give their employees a 401k match are spending much less cash that they would for a pension.
ChicagoAnalyst
donttreadonme
Instructor
Yes, gov't jobs are for pensions. I have one uncle who is a retired Air Force officer (32 1/2 years) and when he retired he was getting $5k/mo. (add in the COLA, etc. now it is higher). Another uncle currently works for the state dept. and is retiring in a few years and he will also get $5k/mo. as of now (will be higher I am sure when he does retire).
Both worked hard to achieve their positions in their respective organizations.
But what private company is going to offer $60k/year in pension for workers? That question will answer why one works for the gov't.
Both worked hard to achieve their positions in their respective organizations.
But what private company is going to offer $60k/year in pension for workers? That question will answer why one works for the gov't.
Yes, my father in law did the same thing. He stayed with a friend the last few years before retirement to save $. He worked for gov't at lower wages because of the pension. His friend did contract work and got paid about 3x what my father-in-law did.
Result: Father-in-law has a nice cabin in the country with enough to retire comfortably. Friend has sold his house, his jeep, and almost ready to move in with father-in-law because there's no work. (What's that old parable, cricket & ants?)
Result: Father-in-law has a nice cabin in the country with enough to retire comfortably. Friend has sold his house, his jeep, and almost ready to move in with father-in-law because there's no work. (What's that old parable, cricket & ants?)
DCCoolBreeze
Programmer
Yah. Reader's Digest had an article out about 10 years ago that talked about the new rich. They talked about government workers could (at that time) retire after 20 years with an immediate pension...start another job and by the time they really retired, get monies from their gov't pension; their company 401K and social security...not bad.
I remember when the private sector offered better benefits and higher salaries then the gov't so most people worked in the private sector. However, today that is no longer the case...to think I could have remained in the Army for 20 years and be drawing a pension now that could pay my mortgage...hind site is always 20/20
)
I remember when the private sector offered better benefits and higher salaries then the gov't so most people worked in the private sector. However, today that is no longer the case...to think I could have remained in the Army for 20 years and be drawing a pension now that could pay my mortgage...hind site is always 20/20
)
dilettante
MIS
In most cases those pensions are intended to be funded from money set aside through pension fund investment programs... in other words the money should already be there. Those funds were usually a combination of employer (gov't) and employee contributions (payroll deduction).
I'm not as certain about the health benefits' funding.
In many state and local governments (I don't know about U.S. Federal employees, and all bets are off re. Federal elected office holders) that style of plan was closed to new employees almost 15 years ago. In many of those non-Fed instances more recent employees were offered things more like regular 401K programs (in many cases exactly that).
I'm not as certain about the health benefits' funding.
In many state and local governments (I don't know about U.S. Federal employees, and all bets are off re. Federal elected office holders) that style of plan was closed to new employees almost 15 years ago. In many of those non-Fed instances more recent employees were offered things more like regular 401K programs (in many cases exactly that).
lionelhill
Technical User
<offtopic>
No, the money isn't already there. The pension funds make it look as though you are paying now to a fund that will build up so the money is there when you retire, but the factor that determines their current actions is "are they solvent now".
Solvent now = is(expenditure now) <= (income now)?
Expenditure now = pensioners' payments out,
Income now = (workers' payments in) + (investment income)
In theory investment income should have been planned using the current pensioners' payments when they were working, so that it is now enough to cover their pensions. But in practice there has been much optimisim about how much investments will yield, so when there's a shortfall, solvency can only be achieved by upping the payments of current workers to fund current pensioners.
Also, of course, people tend to buy into pension schemes that offer a lot, so the most over-optimistic pension schemes are likely to end up best subscribed (now, = most profitable now), but are still the most over-optimistic (= most likely to find themselves under-yielding in the future, therefore in most need of more subscriptions in the future). I hope you can see the positive feedback loop in this?!
And of course if a pension company finds itself in the happy position of having plenty of cash at the moment, its current share-holders and directors will probably prefer to sway the balance in favour of increasing their earnings now rather than investing more as a guard against the future. What do they care if the whole thing goes bust in 30 years?
But of course I might be writing rubbish.
</offtopic>
No, the money isn't already there. The pension funds make it look as though you are paying now to a fund that will build up so the money is there when you retire, but the factor that determines their current actions is "are they solvent now".
Solvent now = is(expenditure now) <= (income now)?
Expenditure now = pensioners' payments out,
Income now = (workers' payments in) + (investment income)
In theory investment income should have been planned using the current pensioners' payments when they were working, so that it is now enough to cover their pensions. But in practice there has been much optimisim about how much investments will yield, so when there's a shortfall, solvency can only be achieved by upping the payments of current workers to fund current pensioners.
Also, of course, people tend to buy into pension schemes that offer a lot, so the most over-optimistic pension schemes are likely to end up best subscribed (now, = most profitable now), but are still the most over-optimistic (= most likely to find themselves under-yielding in the future, therefore in most need of more subscriptions in the future). I hope you can see the positive feedback loop in this?!
And of course if a pension company finds itself in the happy position of having plenty of cash at the moment, its current share-holders and directors will probably prefer to sway the balance in favour of increasing their earnings now rather than investing more as a guard against the future. What do they care if the whole thing goes bust in 30 years?
But of course I might be writing rubbish.
</offtopic>
johnherman
MIS
Like dogbert2, I also used to work for the feds and went to the private sector. At that time, for the money. Programmers were GS-9 nationwide and the private sector in the Phila/NJ metro area were earning much more. Anyway, I slammed the pay scale on my exit comment sheet, remarking that a GS-9 Programmer in MS or AL lives like a king, but in NJ, NY, CA, etc, can barely make ends meet and, of course, the GS-9 pay couldn't compete with the private sector. Anyway, I was out a year or two and got a call from my old government boss, asking if I wanted to come back. "Why?", I asked. Well they revamped the program and now the bigger areas had their one GS-9 replaced by two GS-10's. Now two people were doing the work of one at a higher rate. BTW, they also added a regional pay adjustment, which impressed me, but the adjustment could not exceed 5%, which was a ridiculous cap. Everyone knows, or should know, that all the important accomplishments in the computer field for the government come from contractors, contracts, and consultants.
Sometimes the grass is greener on the other side because there is more manure there - original.
Sometimes the grass is greener on the other side because there is more manure there - original.
> but the adjustment could not exceed 5%, which was a ridiculous cap. <
I agree. Look at housing costs in Alabama vs. Northern Virginia. On a lark, I went out to realtor.com last year to find the cheapest house in Silicon Valley --- $330,000 for a 950sqft 2-bedroom!!
Chip H.
If you want to get the best response to a question, please check out FAQ222-2244 first
I agree. Look at housing costs in Alabama vs. Northern Virginia. On a lark, I went out to realtor.com last year to find the cheapest house in Silicon Valley --- $330,000 for a 950sqft 2-bedroom!!
Chip H.
If you want to get the best response to a question, please check out FAQ222-2244 first
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Question